Bernard Vatant wrote:
>
> ...In many places, a great deal of time and energy is
> invested to collect and update links, and all these efforts IMO could
> be more effective at a lower time/energy cost if somehow coordinated.
> The problem is : many of these projects and tools exactly aim to this
> very same role of coordination, and when there are many diverse
> attempts at coordination, so... there is no coordination at all ...
>
Yep. Great observation!
That about sums it up, I think.

The goal of serious knowledge sharing and reuse of intellectual
energy is about exactly that -- achieving synergy. Of course,
given that is a lack of mechanisms that allow sharing and reuse
which motivates the desire to solve the problem, it is inevitable
that there are multiple disparate solution attempts.

Rather than "ironic", I tend to see the situation as "natural".
The difficulty of remote collaboration when people *agree* on
goals is such that it is only barely possible at this juncture.
To attempt collaboration (and synergy) of related efforts (but
not identical efforts) is just so extradorinaly difficult as to
be effectively impossible. (Even if you and I are building the
exact same tool that works in exactly the same way, chances
are that different pieces won't mesh, if only because we've used
different names!)

At some point, true "template" programming may become a reality.
It should then be possible to dovetail work that is isomorphic
at its heart. Until then, I'm afraid the Darwinian approach
where different groups propose different solutions, and one
becomes the winner, is the best we can hope for.